In her classic novel, To Kill A Mockingbird, author Harper Lee wrote about the injustice of Tom Robinson, a Black man in rural Alabama, being convicted of beating and raping a young White woman, despite the fact that the attacker would have to have been left-handed, and Robinson, due to an accident earlier in his life, had no use of his left arm. The one and only reason for Robinson\’s conviction was his skin color.
Today, in the supposedly enlightened, urbane city of Amherst, Massachusetts, we have the injustice of a young man who was expelled from Amherst University, his reputation shattered, his future severely damaged, based on a former classmate\’s charge of rape – a charge made years after the rape, which he was given virtually no chance to defend himself against, and which we now know, based on text messages sent immediately afterwards by the “victim”, did not take place. The one and only reason for this young man\’s “conviction”? Because Amherst was determined to show it would not tolerate women being mistreated on campus…even if there were no mistreatment at all.
Here are the first four paragraphs of Walter V. Robinson\’s excellent, detailed article for the Boston Globe – an article, it should be pointed, that was published on May 31, almost three weeks ago, but has generated only scant coverage by most other mainstream media:
In December 2013, Amherst College imposed its first major sanction under a new get-tough sexual misconduct policy, expelling a 21-year-old senior after a disciplinary board concluded that he had forced a female classmate to perform oral sex during an alcohol-infused encounter nearly two years earlier.
In April 2014, however, the expelled student presented the college with new evidence – a series of text messages the woman sent to two other male students immediately after the alleged rape, according to a lawsuit. To one, a dorm counselor, she described the sexual encounter in language that suggested it was consensual and she wrote, “It\’s pretty obvi [obvious] I wasn\’t an innocent bystander.”
To the other student, she sent text messages inviting him over later that same night to “entertain” her – an invitation that resulted in a second sexual encounter, according to text messages and an affidavit by the male student. The accuser testified during the disciplinary hearing that she had texted a friend to come over after the alleged attack.
In the 13 months since the expelled student obtained the texts and gave them to college officials, it appears Amherst has taken no public steps to revisit its decision to expel the student. On Friday, his lawyer, Max D. Stern, filed a lawsuit in US District Court in Springfield, arguing that the college is guilty of a miscarriage of justice against his client, who is identified as “John Doe.”
To review:
-Two students, a young man and a young woman, engaged in consensual sexual activity;
-The young woman was so distressed by this sexual encounter that she then invited a second young man over so she could have more sex;
-Then, TWO YEARS LATER, she accused the first young man of sexual conduct…
-…and, at the hearing, she did not mention her second sexual partner, she made it seem as though she invited a friend over, presumably to console and commisserate with her.
At this point you might be asking “If that guy had text messages proving all this, why didn\’t he show them at the disciplinary hearing”.
Great question. And here is your answer: he couldn\’t. The disciplinary board, you see, refused to allow him to defend himself. No lawyer present, no cross-examining his accuser, no nothing.
In other words, Amherst University ran a kangaroo court; a star chamber, with him being the “star”.
Only after the board met, and doled out its punishment, was he able to retain the services of a lawyer, who got the text messages that proved his innocence.
Next question: “So now that he has those text messages, which make it crystal-clear that the sex was consensual and she was lying, he\’s reinstated with an apology…maybe his legal fees paid by the school as well, right?
Nope. As the article tells us, it has been over a year, and the disciplinary board refuses to revisit its decision.
Why? I would LOVE to hear them explain, wouldn\’t you?
Now the young man\’s lawyer has filed suit against the school, calling its decision a “miscarriage of justice”.
I hope he wins his suit, the school is forced to do what it should have done in the first place – apologize, pay all his legal costs, and hand him the degree it withheld (which, if I were him, I\’d use the next time I sat in a bathroom stall)…
…and maybe, just maybe, rethink the degree they handed to the lying sex toy – consensual sex toy – who caused this mess in the first place.
I\’ll bet even Harper Lee – now 89 years old, and about to release a second novel – would heartily approve.
